CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints Minimum Wages Cannot Be Ignored While Determining Just Compensation: Andhra Pradesh High Court Re-Fixes Income of Deceased Mason, Enhances Interest to 7.5% 34 IPC | Common Intention Is Inferred From Manner Of Attack, Weapons Carried And Concerted Conduct: Allahabad High Court Last Date of Section 4 Publication Is Crucial—Error in Date Cannot Depress Market Value: Bombay High Court Enhances Compensation in Beed Land Acquisition Appeals Order 26 Rule 10-A CPC | Rarest of Rare: When a Mother Denies Her Own Child: Rajasthan High Court Orders DNA Test to Decide Maternity Acquittal Is Not a Passport Back to Uniform: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Dismissal of Constable in NDPS Case Despite Trial Court Verdict Limitation Under Section 468 Cr.P.C. Cannot Be Ignored — But Section 473 Keeps the Door Open in the Interest of Justice: P&H HC Non-Stamping Renders A Document Inadmissible, Not Void – Defect Is Curable Once Duty Is Paid: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Specific Performance MP High Court Upholds Ladli Behna Yojana Criteria; Rules Registration Deadlines and Age Limits Fall Under Executive Domain Criminal Courts Are Not Recovery Agents: Orissa High Court Grants Bail in ₹3.5 Crore Land Fraud Cases Citing Article 21 and Terminal Illness Employee Cannot Switch Cadre At His Sweet Will After Accepting Promotion: J&K High Court Rejects Claim For Retrospective Assistant Registrar Appointment Anticipatory Bail Cannot Expire With Charge-Sheet: Supreme Court Reiterates Liberty Is Not Bound by Procedural Milestones Order II Rule 2 Cannot Eclipse Amendment Power Under Order VI Rule 17: MP High Court Refuses to Stall Will-Based Title Suit Grounds of Arrest Must Be Personal, Not Formal – But Detailed Allegations Suffice: Kerala High Court Upholds Arrest in Sabarimala Gold Misappropriation Case Grounds of Arrest Are Not a Ritual – They Are a Constitutional Mandate Under Article 22(1): Allahabad High Court Sets Aside Arrest for Non-Supply of Written Grounds Sect. 25 NDPS | Mere Ownership Cannot Fasten NDPS Liability – ‘Knowingly Permits’ Must Be Proved Beyond Reasonable Doubt: MP High Court Section 308 CrPC | Revocation of Pardon Is Not Automatic on Prosecutor’s Certificate: Karnataka High Court Joint Family and Ancestral Property Are Alien to Mohammedan Law: Gujarat High Court Sets Aside Injunction Right to Health Cannot Wait for Endless Consultations: Supreme Court Pulls Up FSSAI Over Delay in Front-of-Pack Warning Labels If A Son Dies Intestate Leaving Wife And Children, The Mother Has No Share: Karnataka High Court

Doctor not liable for medical negligence by applying the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur -SC

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


Apex Court in the case of medical negligence It is observed that in this day and age of super specialization, one doctor cannot solve all of a patient's problems. As evidenced by the medical record, each problem is handled by an expert in the relevant field. The complainant contends that because surgery was performed by a doctor, he would be solely responsible for various aspects of the treatment required and provided to the patient. However, this is an incorrect assumption.

It is also held that, as a rule, mere proof that an event has happened or an accident has occurred, the cause of which is unknown, is not evidence of negligence.

The respondent alleges medical negligence on the part of the Hospital and the Doctor in treating the patient. The patient was admitted to the Hospital on April 22nd, 1998, and breathed his last on 12.06.1998. The Hospital charged a sum of Rs. 4,08,800/- for the treatment of the patient during the period of his admission to the hospital. The said amount is included in and is part of the amount of compensation awarded against the appellants herein.

The complainant's complaint against the appellants was that the Doctor had not examined the patient after surgery; angiography was performed after 8 hours of discovering that the blood supply had stopped; the hospital delayed treatment by 12 hours due to a lack of available operating rooms; the doctor did not attend the patient and left him in the care of inexperienced doctors; and reliance on the principle of res ipsa loquitor to support the finding that it was a case of medical negligence .

The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission on 06.01.2010 against the appellants, i.e., Bombay Hospital & Medical Research Centre and Dr. C. Anand Somaya, directed to pay a sum of Rs. 14,18,491/- along with interest @ 9% p.a.  from the date of filing of the complaint till the date of payment.

Apex Court stated tha the fact that the Doctor went abroad cannot be used to infer medical negligence because the patient was admitted to a hospital with specialists from multiple faculties.

If the patient did not survive despite the treatment, the doctors cannot be blamed because even the best doctors cannot prevent the inevitable.

Furthermore, it was held that, as a general rule, mere proof that an event or accident occurred, the cause of which is unknown, is not evidence of negligence. The mere occurrence of an event or an accident, the cause of which is unknown, is not evidence of negligence.

It is also laid down that a doctor cannot be held liable for medical negligence by applying the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur for the reason that a patient has not favourably responded to a treatment given by a doctor, or a surgery has failed.

Appeal allowed.

D.D- NOVEMBER 30, 2021.

BOMBAY HOSPITAL & MEDICAL RESEARCH CENTRE  VERSUS ASHA JAISWAL & ORS.    

Latest Legal News